[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-womb] [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synop

From: Ineiev via RT
Subject: Re: [bug-womb] [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:34:17 -0500

On 01/10/2014 01:20 PM, John Darrington via RT wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:44:25AM -0500, Ineiev via RT wrote:
>      Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something
>      different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1].
>      I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and
>      converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse
>      conversion would be necessary.
> It's become a kindof de facto standard, that html text in <code></code> should
> not ever be translated.  This is a useful convention to follow so that 
> automatic
> html translation services can recognise texts which should be left 
> untranslated.
> I don't see any advantages for Gnu not to follow this convention.

I was not clear enough, what I meant was: the original text says,
foo uses "--bar" to baz.

gm-generate.pl converts it to
foo uses <tt>--bar</tt> to baz.

Now, some translator may replace the <tt> tag with <code>:
когда foo видит <code>--bar</code>, она бацает.

This makes the conversion of the translation (from HTML to plain text
and back) non-trivial.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]